Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cathedral of St. John the Baptist (Savannah)

Cathedral of St. John the Baptist (Savannah)

A high-res, crisp, appealing picture of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Savannah, Georgia

Nominate and support. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The sky is beautiful, but I don't like how the base of the Church is cut off. - JPM | 23:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. same as JPM, too bad though, great pic otherwise. -Ravedave 05:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Can be much better: base included, better perspective by being shot from further away, or, if that is not possible, rectify perspective. --Janke | Talk 07:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with above, I want the base. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to say something after the first oppose, but now that its gone to 4 opposes, I suppose I'll say something. I really hate it when people oppose an FPC candidate because the area focused on isn't ideal for the voter. The picture is not of the entire Cathedral, it is of the area I as a photographer chose for ideal composition. Had I chosen to shoot the base (which is rather unadorned and unnatractive), the "cracking sidewalk" and "ugly rusty railings" would've detracted from the image and voters would've opposed for that reason. I know that voting is your opinion, but if you're going to oppose someone's FPC do so because the photograph has issues not because the photograph in your imagination is better. Thanks so much. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 23:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The photograph has issues... it does not fully display its subject. If the article it was illustrating was about a certain aspect of cathedral architecture, you'd have more of a point. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. Don't get so defensive.[reply]
- Actually, the photograph does have issues that I didn't include in my oppose reasoning, because I didn't want to be too harsh or nit-picky. But now I regret that decision. Regardless of that, if it's supposed to be a picture of a cathedral, and the cathedral isn't entirely pictured, then this is obviously a problem. And if you think including the base would have opened the image up to other complaints, like "cracking sidewalk," then perhaps the church just isn't cut out for being a FP. You could have focused on a certain aspect of the church, and then this wouldn't have been a problem, but if you present the church as the FPC, and it's not all showing, what can you expect? Look at some of the other FPC's where part of the object in question was cut off -- they almost always get opposed. You're welcome. - JPM | 01:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose don't like the bottom bit being cut off. chowells 01:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Suffers from a lack of Perspective Control, which causes the towers to look like they are falling backwards. Photo has nice features, but lacks technical quality to merit Feature Picture designation. SteveHopson 05:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with chowells --Fir0002 www 09:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image is uncomplete. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 09:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to bottom of church being cut off and weird angle of shot. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though the image is incomplete, I feel that it does accurately represent the target. And the perspective is not that bad. --Joshua Boniface 23:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Very nice image, but as stated already I don't like how the base of the church is cut off. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 00:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]